Kenneth Woods argues that “Haydn was a more creative, more talented and more skilled composer than Mozart.”
My first reaction was that this was insane. After reading his article, I now think that given what Woods means by this claim, it may well be right. But I also think that what he means by those words is an eccentric thing to mean by them. What he goes on to say about Haydn and Mozart seems to me to advance the claim that a) each of them was better in some respects than the other, and b) the respects in which Mozart was better are more profound. Any version of the claim that “Haydn was a more creative, more talented and more skilled composer than Mozart” that’s consistent with (a) and (b) strikes me as a pretty watered-down version.
Still, definitely worth a read.
I see what you mean, but I’m not sure Woods is really committed to your (b). He says things that might be interpreted that way, but I’m not sure he really intends (b) by it.
I found this an odd claim–actually two odd claims:
Does that strike you as obvious? I’m not even sure I get it.
I have always enjoyed Haydn more.
Why? I’ve often heard similar claims made by people who know a lot more about Haydn’s and Mozart’s music then I do.